Was Muhammad a good man?

[Sees]

Not a good man by my personal standards but a great man by many others. Muhammad: Man and Prophet by Adil Salahi is a good book that should still be widely available if someone wants to go beyond a few web articles.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Not a good man by my personal standards but a great man by many others. Muhammad: Man and Prophet by Adil Salahi is a good book that should still be widely available if someone wants to go beyond a few web articles.

I would recommend Ali Dashti's 23 years. he is very neutral about Muhammad and religion in general.

 

[Sha'irullah]

If a husband has a responsibility to ensure his wife and children are on the straight path to Allah, doesn't that contradict the injunction on "there is no compulsion in religion". The only way a man could ensure his family was on the "straight path to Allah" would, necessarily, be through compulsion.

As I said before, there are numerous contradictions in the Qur'an and Islamic theology unlike Christianity and the Bible. If there was no compulsion in the deen of Islam then it would be pointless for it to be spread or for the battles at the hands of Muhammad to occur.

The Qur'an is the compilation of Muhammad's moods at a particular time which changed do to varying circumstances. If the Qur'an was the word of Allah then it would not vary so much in its message.

Why on earth do Muslims have Naskh? Verses which contradict are magically abrogated because they do not hold up for some reason.

Shaytaan is an angel and then a jinn. Is history able to be abrogated as well?

There is a multitude of fallacies int he Qur'an and its claim to be "the word of god" when it does not even coincide with the perfect omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being it is associated with.

 

[McBell]

As I said before, there are numerous contradictions in the Qur'an and Islamic theology unlike Christianity and the Bible.

:biglaugh:

 

[FearGod]

Do not dare use Abdur Green's videos. I have better things to do then listen to a borderline terrorist speak about Islam. Green is nothing but a moron who speaks fanciful.

Seriously have you not paid attention to this man at all? Nothing in this video is being backed up by any ayah or narrative texts such as Sahih Muslim or Bukhari. Qur'an contradicts itself and external texts so anything else just adds fuel tot he every burning flame of Qur'anic contradictions as well.

You are also using reverse arguments as you are speaking of wars in the present tense as immoral like that of the past. Are you admitting that Muhammad's battles were immoral?

Abdulraheem Green explained very well the verse which you didn't understand.

Do you call fighting a gang to be immoral ?

There were rules that the prophet was obliged to spread it among nations and who tried to stop him by force the answer was war.

Actually we can realize the truth by reading the prophet's final sermon when the prophet knew that he was going to leave earth very soon.

We can realize from his sermon what kind of person he was.

[youtube]i3Xc1MfX9X8[/youtube]
The Prophet Muhammad's Last Sermon - YouTube

 

[Sha'irullah]

:biglaugh:

Well just to clarify......there are less contradictions in Christianity than Islamic . To me Islam seems to have over twice the amount of blatantly obvious contradictions.

 

[Manna]

I think the most important thing is to approach this question in a respectful and objective manner. Some people might unintentionally be filled with a great deal of negative emotion and prejudices which would lead them to talk about Muhammed in an overly critical way which is a problem.

One example of a person who is very biased, critical and characterised by negative emotion made the following video.

JESUS VS. MUHAMMAD!! (Qur'an Challenge II) (check on youtube)

I think such an attitude makes it hard to properly and frankly discuss the topic.

A much better take on the question was offered by the following video:

JESUS V MUHAMMAD!! | MUSLIM RESPONSE | MISCONCEPTIONS

Although I am not greatly knowledgeable about the life of Muhammed but my point is that emotion filled words suggest that the person is overly biased and in an illogical way which should be avoided.

One specific point I do want to make about Muhammed is that he was respectful to his wives. From my understanding (do correct me if I'm wrong) he only married women that were widows (thus disadvantaged women in a way) even though he could have had the most attractive women, which shows that he is above earthly pleasures and vices. This is a sign of a good man.

Further, he had respect for individuals of all diversity. He had one wife (Safiyya bint Huyayy) who was Jewish (like me) and who then converted to Islam. One story goes that when Muhammad's other wives teased Saifyya for her Jewish origins, and Muhammad said that "if they discriminate you again, tell them that your husband is Muhammad, your father was the prohert Aaron and your uncle was prohet Musa. In this case I'm superior to you". Thus, I think an individual who is so accepting of people from other backgrounds is a love person. Also, the fact that Muhammad defended and cared for his wives, as shown in the example, suggests that he was a caring and kind person.

 

[Manna]

As I said before, there are numerous contradictions in the Qur'an and Islamic theology unlike Christianity and the Bible.

This is an example by the way of a very biased and unfair argument. If you really want you can find flaws in anything, even that which has minimal flaws. Instead I think it's best to have a balanced argument, where you make criticisms if they are fair, and you also consider positive points and then you make a conclusion (and without emotion laden ideas and words!).

 

[1robin]

Abdulraheem Green explained very well the verse which you didn't understand.

Do you call fighting a gang to be immoral ?

There were rules that the prophet was obliged to spread it among nations and who tried to stop him by force the answer was war.

Actually we can realize the truth by reading the prophet's final sermon when the prophet knew that he was going to leave earth very soon.

We can realize from his sermon what kind of person he was.

[youtube]i3Xc1MfX9X8[/youtube]
The Prophet Muhammad's Last Sermon - YouTube

I call ripping a child out of it's mothers arms so she could be stabbed, raiding caravans because they contained a lot of goods to steal, revenge killings, killing poets for writing unflattering things about Muhammad, supposedly reanimating corpses he and his companions had killed so as to ridicule them even further before letting or causing them to die again, chopping the heads off of bound prisoners until he was exhausted, and calling a companions claims he had without instructions killed an enemy of Muhammad immoral. That is just the tip of the ice burg.

 

[1robin]

Whats a lunatic?? Whats crazy? Whats sane? I would take crazy anyday. Sane is too boring.

That certainly explains a lot.

 

[FearGod]

I call ripping a child out of it's mothers arms so she could be stabbed, raiding caravans because they contained a lot of goods to steal, revenge killings, killing poets for writing unflattering things about Muhammad, supposedly reanimating corpses he and his companions had killed so as to ridicule them even further before letting or causing them to die again, chopping the heads off of bound prisoners until he was exhausted, and calling a companions claims he had without instructions killed an enemy of Muhammad immoral. That is just the tip of the ice burg.

Those are false accusations and just a silly attempts to distort the message of Islam which is based on justice,peace,love,brotherhood & unity.

 

[Sees]

Those are false accusations and just a silly attempts to distort the message of Islam which is based on justice,peace,love,brotherhood & unity.

Many people go by results... what they are and how they were achieved. Fear and threat of violence seem much more prevalent than love and peace in theology and politics spawned by Muhammad and his legacy. As a former military member taught leadership and former 10+ year student of Islam there was always an awful lot of familiarity.

Today the higher ranks usually also motivate using words of peace and freedom but tend to leave out the "will of god" stuff. Power and money still the main goals regardless of what is mouthed to the ignorant masses.

 

[YmirGF]

...Islam which is based on justice,peace,love,brotherhood & unity.

and yet Muslim armies were quick to take up arms against any who opposed this so-called "justice,peace,love,brotherhood & unity".

 

[Quagmire]

I think the most important thing is to approach this question in a respectful and objective manner. Some people might unintentionally be filled with a great deal of negative emotion and prejudices which would lead them to talk about Muhammed in an overly critical way which is a problem.

One example of a person who is very biased, critical and characterised by negative emotion made the following video.

JESUS VS. MUHAMMAD!! (Qur'an Challenge II) (check on youtube)

I think such an attitude makes it hard to properly and frankly discuss the topic.

A much better take on the question was offered by the following video:

JESUS V MUHAMMAD!! | MUSLIM RESPONSE | MISCONCEPTIONS

Although I am not greatly knowledgeable about the life of Muhammed but my point is that emotion filled words suggest that the person is overly biased and in an illogical way which should be avoided.

One specific point I do want to make about Muhammed is that he was respectful to his wives. From my understanding (do correct me if I'm wrong) he only married women that were widows (thus disadvantaged women in a way) even though he could have had the most attractive women, which shows that he is above earthly pleasures and vices. This is a sign of a good man.

Further, he had respect for individuals of all diversity. He had one wife (Safiyya bint Huyayy) who was Jewish (like me) and who then converted to Islam. One story goes that when Muhammad's other wives teased Saifyya for her Jewish origins, and Muhammad said that "if they discriminate you again, tell them that your husband is Muhammad, your father was the prohert Aaron and your uncle was prohet Musa. In this case I'm superior to you". Thus, I think an individual who is so accepting of people from other backgrounds is a love person. Also, the fact that Muhammad defended and cared for his wives, as shown in the example, suggests that he was a caring and kind person.

A noble effort, Manna, but there are people in this thread just making things up on the spot.

It's pretty much impossible to get someone to look at truth objectively when truth isn't their objective.

*edited because I quoted the wrong post first time*

 

[Sha'irullah]

This is an example by the way of a very biased and unfair argument. If you really want you can find flaws in anything, even that which has minimal flaws. Instead I think it's best to have a balanced argument, where you make criticisms if they are fair, and you also consider positive points and then you make a conclusion (and without emotion laden ideas and words!).

You are not reading anything I saw then it seems . All opinions hold bias by default.

When I count the contradictions off my head in regards to the Qur'an and Bible the Qur'an seems to have more contradictions. I prefer the message of the Qur'an over the Bible but on a literary basis it is not as sound.

You said I have bias but apparently I do not considering that I am arguing against something which I have a profound love for(Islamic theology, Qur'an and pre-Islamic religion).


I cannot take you seriously as you are making vast absurdities. I have argued for and against Muhammad on the previous page as well stating his morality and immorality along with the Qur'an's valuable messages and negative ones which has brought us tot he argument of contradictions. You claim to be Jewish but you seems dead set on providing evidence that the Qur'an is wholly good along with Muhammad which would have to be the reason you are arguing with me.

The only person who is surprisingly bias is yourself as your arguments are one sided. I heavily recommend you read before you write.

 

[Sha'irullah]

This is an example by the way of a very biased and unfair argument. If you really want you can find flaws in anything, even that which has minimal flaws. Instead I think it's best to have a balanced argument, where you make criticisms if they are fair, and you also consider positive points and then you make a conclusion (and without emotion laden ideas and words!).

As I said before, there are numerous contradictions in the Qur'an and Islamic theology unlike Christianity and the Bible. If there was no compulsion in the deen of Islam then it would be pointless for it to be spread or for the battles at the hands of Muhammad to occur.

The Qur'an is the compilation of Muhammad's moods at a particular time which changed do to varying circumstances. If the Qur'an was the word of Allah then it would not vary so much in its message.

Well just to clarify......there are less contradictions in Christianity than Islamic . To me Islam seems to have over twice the amount of blatantly obvious contradictions.

Something I am not seeing here though is a Muslim defending their prophet from the narrative claims of him killing and slaughtering individuals like cows. His immoral behavior and immoral concepts are also not being defended as well.

Many good things can be said about Muhammad which is fine and dandy but what about the barbaric actions he has been narrated as portraying?

Again, I heavily doubt you read anything I have been saying. If there is one thing I cannot stand is people who are unfathomably bias and yell the reverse towards others.
It is like a murderer yelling out the injustice of another murderer taking the life of someone he loves. It is just bad irony and bad taste for such an individual to complain about the immorality of the other party.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The act was probably good but that would not make the one doing it good. The reason I stated what I did was to separate acts done for recognition but claimed to be for God. In one sense an atheist acting benevolently is good and in another it is neutral. It is very hard to understand that without faith. I have faith and it is still a little hard. I will only say that acts done for purely for God as per his instructions, have no possibility of being bad. I would need the context of the original discussion to make this any clearer but am in too big a hurry to review at the moment.

I obviously don't think that there is a god and at the very least don't feel obligated to think that any "prophet" or any act in the name of any god would be given any special treatment when talking about their moral value. However I see where you are going with this and would like to veer this back into the broader term of "moral" which hopefully can stand up in a secular manner.

So is he a moral man? Was he "good"? Devoid of the existence of god is he good or not?

This is another complex one but a less confusing one that that above.

1. The Quran acknowledges Biblical prophets. The Bible condemns Muhammad.
2. So by both Islamic and Christian standards prophets came from only the line of Isaac, of course this eliminates Muhammad as a prophet so the intellectual gymnastics begin.
3. God (in the Bible) said his prophets would predict the future with 100% accuracy. That is a pretty good test even from secular standards. No one in history has ever been 100% accurate about the future other than Biblical prophets. Even false prophets can have limited visions of the future but they are never as exhaustive or as accurate as God's actual prophets.
4. The Bible says all prophets will confirm the Biblical narrative in every detail. Muhammad gutted the most central claim of Christianity and do disqualified himself yet again.
5. Islam only has one potential prophet, the Bible is full of them. Their one pseudo prophet violated every test for true prophet hood the Bible lists.
6. So I am contrasting the several dozen Biblical prophets that met every test of prophet hood against a single prophet who never prophesied and could not perform miracles when asked to. It is not much of a contest.

I can get much more detailed and exhaustive but I am unsure if you wish prophet hood evaluated in strictly a theological context that you do not subscribe to. If you do just let me know.

Well this is where I run into snags. I mean if we assume Christianity and the bible is correct then obviously its a "no ****" moment. But if we don't assume Christianity is correct then all of those points kind of fall apart.

Though to correct you a wee bit. The koran does agree with many of the same prophets of the bible on the basest terms that they exist. The stories are often very different. The Jesus in the Koran is a very different person than the Jesus in the bible. What evidence can you bring that proves that the Jesus in the bible is the correct version of "jesus" compared to the Jesus of the Koran.

There was a legendary scholar named C.S. Lewis who set out to prove the Bible wrong and gave it up as impossible and concerted. I will post what he said about Christ and his being a good man because it would apply to anyone claiming prophet hood.

C.S. Lewis > Quotes > Quotable Quote
C.S. Lewis
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”


― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Quote by C.S. Lewis: I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the r...

Unfortunatly I don't put to much stock int C.S. Lewis. The man isn't terribly convincing. I don't claim all of what Jesus said was advisable or even remotely moral. In fact many of his statements were contradictory to earlier Hebrew doctrine.

I also don't like the Lord or Lunatic argument. Its a false dichotomy that really doesn't reflect the most likely choice at hand. I prefer to think of hims as a legend of some kind. Its possible he didn't exist at all but I at least lend the likelihood of his existence in some form or another.

There is a reason why the Bible supplies certain tests for prophet hood.

1. Only a man empowered by God could predict the future with 100% accuracy time after time.
2. Only a man empowered by God could suspend natural law and perform events in contradiction to them.

There are others but I would think even from a secular perspective that would be one heck of a foundation to seriously consider that person a potential prophet.

Well I get why a "christniaty is correct by default" position can make claims to his immorality of misrepresenting god but as you stated I am more for a secular position.

 

[Quagmire]

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

Now, now, lets not confuse the self-proclaimed Bible experts in here by showing what it actually says.

 

[ladybug77]

Now, now, lets not confuse the self-proclaimed Bible experts in here by showing what it actually says.

Thats why i think Jesus was 'adam' reincarnated. But why dont christians teach reincarnation?? I dont get it....its more like buddism...and christianity go hand in hand. And the buddist view of the 7 chakras...sounds just like the visions of heaven revelations talks about. Imho. This makes sense. Not that the bible is false...but that its interpreted wrong sometimes.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Thats why i think Jesus was 'adam' reincarnated. But why dont christians teach reincarnation?? I dont get it....its more like buddism...and christianity go hand in hand. And the buddist view of the 7 chakras...sounds just like the visions of heaven revelations talks about. Imho. This makes sense. Not that the bible is false...but that its interpreted wrong sometimes.

Christianity doesn't preach reincarnation because the Bible doesn't. It doesn't fit into Christian theology. Although I can understand the logic of reincarnation and the evidence for it, I can't see how it would or could fit into Christianity.